It is currently Wed Nov 21, 2018 9:01 am



Reply to topic  [ 178 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
 Stu Presents: A History Of New Hollywood! 
Author Message
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Stu Presents: A History Of New Hollywood!

wigwam wrote:
Kubrick was an indie producer before the end of the studio system and was as established and powerful within the remnants of that system after 2001 as any of his contemporaries

New Hollywood is young unestablished filmmakers seizing the remnants of the system to establish themselves the way indies had and would again in the Sundance era

Kubrick/ACO as New Hollywood is like calling someone/thing like Nolan/Inception mumblecore

Among my materials, 2001 is listed right alongside Bonnie & Clyde, The Graduate, The Wild Bunch and Midnight Cowboy as the nascent films of the New American banner. The problem with "young" is that it excludes important voices - Altman, Peckinpah, Lumet and Penn are all older than Kubrick - of the era.

But more to a direct point, I would say that Clockwork Orange deserves a spot among the class because it was also a particularly important production by Warner Bros under the New American mid-wife John Calley, a part of an impressive roster which included Catch 22, McCabe & Mrs. Miller, Woodstock, Dirty Harry, The Exorcist, Blazing Saddles, Klute, Deliverance, Night Moves, Dog Day Afternoon and TXH-1138. Warners was also distributing seminal films like Mean Streets and Badlands, and British contemporaries like Performance, The Devils, O Lucky Man. Calley's no-questions-asked contract with Kubrick was a quintessential gesture of surrender for the Hollywood system, and represented the inaugural gate-crashing of other maverick auteurs.


Thu Nov 01, 2018 9:34 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Stu Presents: A History Of New Hollywood!

Jinnistan wrote:
Among my materials, 2001 is listed right alongside Bonnie & Clyde, The Graduate, The Wild Bunch and Midnight Cowboy as the nascent films of the New American banner. The problem with "young" is that it excludes important voices - Altman, Peckinpah, Lumet and Penn are all older than Kubrick - of the era.

But more to a direct point, I would say that Clockwork Orange deserves a spot among the class because it was also a particularly important production by Warner Bros under the New American mid-wife John Calley, a part of an impressive roster which included Catch 22, McCabe & Mrs. Miller, Woodstock, Dirty Harry, The Exorcist, Blazing Saddles, Klute, Deliverance, Night Moves, Dog Day Afternoon and TXH-1138. Warners was also distributing seminal films like Mean Streets and Badlands, and British contemporaries like Performance, The Devils, O Lucky Man. Calley's no-questions-asked contract with Kubrick was a quintessential gesture of surrender for the Hollywood system, and represented the inaugural gate-crashing of other maverick auteurs.


Let's be honest, 2001 is probably a more adventurous and unprecedented film than anything even the most daring of the New Hollywood directors ever attempted in their lives and probably remains that way to this day.


Thu Nov 01, 2018 12:15 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Stu Presents: A History Of New Hollywood!

bumping this thread because The Other Side of the Wind is out!

(even if Welles is not a certified New Wave filmmaker, I know this is a movie about Hollywood during that era)


Fri Nov 02, 2018 10:18 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Stu Presents: A History Of New Hollywood!

Wooley wrote:
Let's be honest, 2001 is probably a more adventurous and unprecedented film than anything even the most daring of the New Hollywood directors ever attempted in their lives and probably remains that way to this day.

I'm not going to argue this point. A larger issue of this thread comes down to how exactly do we define "New Hollywood". I would say, similar to wigwam, that it mostly represents the collapse of the 60s studios. I would add that it represents a shift from the producer-dominated films to director/auteur-dominated films, and Kubrick definitely epitomizes this shift, well aheead of the curve in fact. But 2001 is a very important "youth" film, the kind that confused the studios (their confusion is painfully evident in that year's Oscars) and led to their surrender to lower-budget, more personal, more auteristic films. John Calley at Warners was one of the primary Hollywood taste-makers during this period, and his liberal contract with Kubrick, in terms of granting full artistic freedom, was an emblem of this spirit. Kubrick, as a singular voice and talent, may be above and beyond the New Hollywood in many ways, but he's still an ingrained presence within the entire movment.

Oxnard Montalvo wrote:
(even if Welles is not a certified New Wave filmmaker, I know this is a movie about Hollywood during that era)

Eh, maybe wee can credit Peter Bogdanovich's New Hollywood credentials for his tireless efforts to secure and restore this film based on Welles' original screenplay.


Sat Nov 03, 2018 10:18 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Stu Presents: A History Of New Hollywood!

idk Jinnistan, you make great points re "young " and Calley but seem too indiscrimate to me by lumping all those titles together, but yes I'd want a project like this to have or find a definition because that kind of differentiation helps in finding valuable works in this and other movements

it's important with Kubrick to note he was always his own producer after Kirk Douglas, and that the producer roles tend to get overlooked with Beatty and Fonda/BBS when New Hollywood gets characterized as "auteur" driven, because a) this is auteur as the misnomer it became following Sarris's lazy translation since it was a necessary distinction at the time Cahiers noted non-producing Hollywood studio-system directors carrying artistic throughlines in their otherwise impersonal assignments but later was broadly applied to any director ("A film by") and b) Kubrick really wasnt influential on the New Hollywood guys the way foreign arthouse was, so idk if his deal with Calley should really be likened to gambles on small productions that ballooned past the blockbuster era, whereas Kubrick was "gambled" on based on his established returns and consistently controlled production costs

ye Stu write something on Other Side of the Wind Im curious what your reaction is


Mon Nov 05, 2018 1:00 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Stu Presents: A History Of New Hollywood!

wigwam wrote:
idk Jinnistan, you make great points re "young " and Calley but seem too indiscrimate to me by lumping all those titles together, but yes I'd want a project like this to have or find a definition because that kind of differentiation helps in finding valuable works in this and other movements

I think that the primary distinction of the era is the breakdown of the traditional studio system by shifting the creative authority from the producers. The director, being elevated from being another employee of the studio, tends to get the most credit by default, in Truffaut's model of auteur. The value of this shift is in films that are riskier, less predictable or formulaic, more personal, iconoclastic and controversial.

wigwam wrote:
it's important with Kubrick to note he was always his own producer after Kirk Douglas

He retained Jack Harris for Lolita, but yes.

wigwam wrote:
the producer roles tend to get overlooked with Beatty and Fonda/BBS when New Hollywood gets characterized as "auteur" driven, because a) this is auteur as the misnomer it became following Sarris's lazy translation since it was a necessary distinction at the time Cahiers noted non-producing Hollywood studio-system directors carrying artistic throughlines in their otherwise impersonal assignments but later was broadly applied to any director

Off the bat, I'm probably more appreciative of Andrew Sarris than you are. Regardless, I don't feel that this does the Cahiers definition of "auteur" justice. Truffaut, in particular, preferred those directors who were also producers, like Hitchcock (or Jerry Lewis), for the reason that they can preserve their voice from the Selznicks of the world. On the other hand, I've never seen someone like Michael Winner or Jack Smight called "auteurs" by, rightly, anybody. I've never seen Arthur Hiller considered an auteur either. It isn't as if the era didn't have its fair share of hacks and clockwatchers.

The producer role had changed. Bert Schneider at BBS was a staunch auteurist and ran his productions accordingly. He kept the money going and the lights on, but deferred creatively to Bogdanovich, Rafelson and Jaglom. He kept the executives off their backs. It's similar to Richard Zanuck, who was also very protective and deferential to his directors under most conditions, who saw his role of producer on Jaws as primarily keeping the studio from firing Spielberg. And this also reflects the attitude at Warners under John Calley, not just for Kubrick. Calley sought out and supported directors with personal visions. Even Robert Evans, who liked to talk tall like the slickest old school mogul, was largely deferential to his talent on his most important films. (His mythologizing around his credit for The Godfather and Chinatown was largely unraveled by Peter Biskind.)

wigwam wrote:
b) Kubrick really wasnt influential on the New Hollywood guys the way foreign arthouse was

I think this is, at best, debatable, but I simply don't believe it.

Evans' right hand man, Peter Bart, may have put it best, and I'm inclined to believe him: "Our answer seemed to be, if you found a brilliant young director with a vision, go with him. It was Kubrick, more than anybody, that had an impact on us."

I'm not going to go into all of the quotes of admiration from the ranks of New Hollywood filmmakers to prove the point, but even if we take Kubrick as the model of auteur that the early-70s studios were seeking to emulate, as a representative for this shift from the traditional creative producer (why they receive the Best Picture statue) to directorial authority, his influence would be pretty remarkable. More fundamentally, the shift is towards those filmmakers who make creative decisions in service of this artistic vision, in the faith that 'great art is good business', away from those executives who make creative decisions based on trying to play the cultural zeitgeist like the stock market.


Tue Nov 06, 2018 11:34 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Stu Presents: A History Of New Hollywood!

I like you, Jinnistan, do you have a viewing log thread here or blog/log/letterboxd elsewhere?


Sun Nov 11, 2018 2:04 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Stu Presents: A History Of New Hollywood!

wigwam wrote:
I like you, Jinnistan, do you have a viewing log thread here or blog/log/letterboxd elsewhere?

I do not. Since the demise of the Tomato forums, I have been a Corrie exclusive. You'll have to trust me when I say I've seen a bunch of movies.


Mon Nov 12, 2018 3:36 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Stu Presents: A History Of New Hollywood!

wigwam wrote:
Clockwork Orange isnt New Hollywood

do more New Hollywood
Well, while both you and Jinn made strong arguments for and against Kubrick's status as a figure of New Hollywood, to respond to you specifically, whether or not a director was an established figure prior to the movement can be a factor in determining whether he and his films belong to it, but for me, it isn't the factor, at least not the deciding one. What determines whether or not a film is NH ultimately lies with the film, and not with who directed it, regardless of how established they already were at the time. So, if someone as milktoast and establishment as Ron Howard had directed as boundary-pushing and transgressive as A Clockwork Orange at the time, I'd still consider it New Hollywood, despite his presence; if you don't like that, you may feel free to make your own thread :D At any rate...

_________________
Recently Reviewed


Mon Nov 12, 2018 4:33 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post 1972: The Godfather (Francis Ford Coppola, rewatch)

Image

I believe in America.

Personal Thoughts:


Let's get this out of the way right here and now; I do not care for The Godfather... at least, that is, not as much as I'm "supposed" to. And it's obviously not the first time in this thread that some sort of disappointment has happened with me and a New Hollywood classic, and it probably won't be the last, so brace yourselves. At any rate, I do feel that The Godfather is a good movie for certain technical aspects of it that are pretty much objectively, undeniably impressive (aspects that I'll be getting into soon here), but on the whole, I've just never felt it was a great movie, much less One Of The Greatest Motion Pictures Of All Time. If you feel like it, you can chalk that up to my internal expectations being too high before I ever watched it, due to all the critical and cultural baggage it's build up over the decades as one of the Greatest Films Ever, but the undeniably iconic status of The Godfather is just something that can't be avoided, and besides, there are plenty of quote/unquote Great Films that I've personally felt were great, so I doubt high expectations had anything to do with my opinion in this case.

Anyway, I could start my complaints here by nitpicking certain elements of the film that seem to get a free pass from criticism by everyone just because of the legendary status of the movie that they're in, like how some of the dialogue is just clunky, obvious exposition, or how ridiculous and blatantly shoehorned-in Connie's plate-smashing fight with Carlo is, as, apparently, Coppola only filmed it because Paramount wanted the film to have more violent scenes to make it more "exciting" for audiences, an absolutely absurd studio demand if I've ever heard one (but Paramount also tried to fire Coppola from the production a number of times, so just keep that little tidbit in mind there). But, I won't dwell on such minateau here; instead, I'll just talk about the main thing holding back The Godfather from greatness for me, which is, well, its seeming insistence on forcing greatness upon itself, rather than allowing it to occur more naturally. I don't know if that's because of the film's somewhat broad characterizations (i.e. Sonny, the quick-tempered hothead, Michael, the fallen angel, or Don Corleone, the scheming, shadowy patriarch), the occasionally unnatural, melodramatic bit of dialogue, or the somewhat ponderous, self-conscious, overly "operatic" tone of the general affair, but on the whole, it seems to be trying a bit too hard in general to be Great, so it's always ended up falling short of that mark for me, as much as I wish I could love it as much as so many others have, and I find myself torn between admiring the film's ambitions, and finding it reaching too hard, so to speak. I wish I could go into more detail on this point here, but that would involve writing a full review, which I don't have time for at the moment, so maybe someday I'll explain more.

But like I said, I do feel it's at least a good movie, and I think I actually appreciate more now than I ever did before, finally watching it in its full, uncensored and uninterrupted by commercials glory. And, while again, I don't feel that The Godfather quite reaches greatness as a whole, there are many individual elements of it that are great, whether it be Gordon Willis's shadowy, high-contrast cinematography that literalizes the spiritual darkness of the film's characters into its physical world, Nino Rota's lush, sweeping original score (with additional contributions from Carmine Coppola, who was you-know-who's own papa), the various costumes, props, and on-location shots that constitute the rich period details of the film's vision of post-World War II America, the stellar performances that breathed life into some of the most iconic characters in film history, or the film's often fairly involving, compellingly dramatic moments in its epic tale of the dark side of The American Dream, despite my complaints about it otherwise.

Significance To The Movement/Cinema As A Whole:

I mean, are you kidding me? Out of all the films I had to choose to cover for this project, this was the easiest by far; I mean, where do I even begin? It won the Oscars for Best Actor, Adapted Screenplay, and of course, Picture (although believe it or not, it actually wasn't the biggest winner at the awards that year, as you'll see below). It currently holds an overall average score of an outstanding 9.3 on Rotten Tomatoes. It's been endlessly parodied throughout popular culture for the better part of half a century now. It placed at #2 on the 2002 Sight & Sound directors' list of greatest films, just behind Citizen Kane, which is appropriate, since, in terms of critical praise, this is basically the Kane of the New Hollywood era, only possibly even greater in overall stature, since, intead of initially failing at the box office and then being steadily reevaluated as a Great Film over the decades like Welles's film, The Godfather was immediately a massive hit, becoming not only the highest-grossing film of the year, but also the highest grossing film of all time (at least for a couple of years, before a certain movie with a giant man-eating fish dethroned it). And before you mention Gone With The Wind as a competitor for a film with the greatest overall status, this has a higher average on RT by a measure of 6 points, so don't even bother.

Anyway, The Godfather is also significant as finally serving as the big break for Francis Ford Coppola, after a decade of alternately directing softcore porn, working as one of Roger Corman's many young proteges (who he actually paid back with a small role in Godfather II), and struggling to find his first real success within the larger Hollywood system. So in retrospect, The Godfather is significant as the breakthrough film for the man who would become one of the most iconic directors of the era (arguably even the most), as well as serving as an early example of the movement rediscovering some of the ambition that defined the larger productions of the Classical era, particularly the historical epics, in terms of the sheer scope and breadth of its epic, character & sub-plot filled, decade/continent-spanning, richly-realized world, but doing so in its own more pessimistic, down to earth sort of way.

And besides that, The Godfather is notable as serving as the big breakthroughs for a number of major stars of the movement, including Diane Keaton, John Cazale, and of course, Al Pacino (again, you may have heard of him), as well as serving as the comeback vehicle for an icon of 50's Hollywood, the Oscar-winning Marlon Brando, who hadn't had a real hit in over a decade by this point, but who would undergo a significant career renaissance throughout the rest of the decade because of this film. And besides that, The Godfather is also significant in its impact on gangster fiction in general, as it sheds the often heavy-handed moralizing of certain Hays Code-bound gangster flicks of Classical Hollywood, presenting its complex, non-stereotypical characters as a somewhat justified reaction by immigrants to the already inherently corrupt larger society they're trying to integrate into, giving us a sympathetic, machismo-heavy, ethnically-insular "inside" perspective from an actual Italian-American director, which helped set the stage for the mobster classics of Scorsese, as well as a certain David Chase-created series in the late 90's that more or less single-handedly jumpstarted the current golden age of TV we're still currently in. So, The Godfather is at least a good film, besides just being one of the most essential, influential, and generally acclaimed ones of all time as well; if you haven't seen it by this point in your life, then what the hell are you waiting for?

Other significant New Hollywood films from '72:

While The Godfather was obviously far and away the New Hollywood winner of the year, '72 also saw Brando continuing his comeback with Bernardo Bertolucci's controversial, X-rated erotic drama Last Tango In Paris, as well as the release of George Roy Hill's adaptation of Kurt Vonnegut's iconic, experimental, sci-fi(-ish) novel Slaughterhouse-Five, Bob Fosse netting himself a Best Director Oscar (and 7 others!) with his Weimar Republic-era musical Cabaret, which radically updated the out-of-date genre with its off-kilter editing style, humble, completely diegetic soundtrack, and discussion of certain mature subjects (including abortion, bi-sexuality/infidelity, and the rise of Nazism in Germany), while John Boorman gave us Deliverance, a harrowing survival thriller that gave 70's icon Burt Reynolds his breakthrough role, and ensured an entire generation of people would never, ever be able to listen to banjos quite the same way again.

_________________
Recently Reviewed


Mon Nov 12, 2018 4:33 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Stu Presents: A History Of New Hollywood!

ja I also feel like GOAT labels on movies can do more harm than good. but whaddya gonna do

I'd recommend listening to Coppola's DVD commentary where he details all the uphill battles he had to fight to get it made. a lot more interesting than his commentary for Part 2 which was largely "the studio gave us enough freedom to do whatever and we did it" or at least that was all I remember before turning it off. (stress-free movie productions make for boring stories!)


Mon Nov 12, 2018 6:41 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Stu Presents: A History Of New Hollywood!

also while John Huston is from the older generation, Fat City is waaaaay more downbeat than Rocky and imo deserves some sort of honorable mention among the New Wave.


Mon Nov 12, 2018 6:48 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Stu Presents: A History Of New Hollywood!

Oxnard Montalvo wrote:
ja I also feel like GOAT labels on movies can do more harm than good. but whaddya gonna do

I feel like those labels can cause people to come in expecting to be blown away, and if they aren't, it can make their disappointment more profound. Similar tings happened to me at least a few times before, and I now try to avoid having these sorts of expectations, because all it does in the end is delay me on fully grasping what a film's going for.

_________________
Top 30 Favorite Films of All Time


Mon Nov 12, 2018 9:23 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Stu Presents: A History Of New Hollywood!

Well, I'm a bit agog on this one, but to each their own.
There are a lot of GOATS out there and when I've seen them I felt like most have lived up to their reputation, but even I have an exception, The African Queen.
But as much as I try to hate on Coppola, I can't deny The Godfather (or Apocalypse Now or Rumble Fish). I think it's a legit contender for the actual, single GOAT, and I think it is better than its sequel (despite all the Godfather 2 is better poppycock people like to trot around).


Tue Nov 13, 2018 4:58 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Stu Presents: A History Of New Hollywood!

I'm not good at math. I don't mess with metrics and calculations. If the biggest problem with The Godfather is the intimidation that comes from the presumption of its greatness, then that's the first clue that the film has very few competing problems. Is it the single greatest piece of cinema ever exposed on celluloid? Who cares about these stakes?

But I like a number of books I was assigned to read in school, so I don't really understand the "homework" resentment that a lot of people have for these kinds of films.

I don't think it's possible to overestimate the significance of the excellent acting in the film. Of course Pacino and Brando, but such a deep bench - Caan, Duvall, Cazale, Keaton, Rocco, Vigoda, Hayden, etc etc. I need to recommend the documentary, Casting By, about Marion Dougherty even though she didn't specifically work on Godfather. She did "discover" Al Pacino however, and, along with Fred Roos, this casting shift towards NY theater-trained actors is one of the major tributaries of the New Hollywood flow. It's taken for granted now that "ethnic" actors like Pacino or Hoffman could ever be leading stars in a Hollywood film.


Tue Nov 13, 2018 1:12 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Stu Presents: A History Of New Hollywood!

Some other of my 1972 faves:

The Heartbreak Kid - The Elaine May classic.

What's Up Doc? - Peter Bogdanovich's revival of the screwball comedy. Quite funny.

Play It Again, Sam/Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex But Were Afraid to Ask - A little corny and juvenile, but very good comedies. Controversially, I prefer Sam to Annie Hall. *breaks bottle*

Bad Company - One of the better anti-Westerns of an era with plenty of them.

Images - Altman's psychological "thriller", not quite as successful as his later 3 Women.

Sleuth - Acting tour de force with Laurence Olivier and Michael Caine. Also, much better than the 2007 remake.

The Getaway - Sam Peckinpah's nihilistic crime drama. (Also much better than the remake.)

Play It As It Lays - A film that needs a bit more attention, adapted from the Joan Didion novel.

The Life & Times of Judge Roy Bean - John Huston's second film of 1972, after Fat City. Paul Newman reportedly stole Lee Marvin's copy of the script that he had left unattended in his chair in order to secure the role.

Fritz the Cat - Bakshi's breakthrough animation.

Last of the Red Hot Lovers - I think this is Alan Arkin's funniest role.

Pink Flamingos - This is just egg paranoia.

King of Marvin Gardens - Don't sleep on this Jack Nicholson performance.

Lady Sings the Blues/Sounder - 1972 was smack in the middle of the blaxploitation boom, but these two films are more serious alternatives. But if you must immerse in the nitty, then start with Superfly and Across 110th Street.

1973 will be a bit more interesting to parse, as there's several films that I think are very worthy of singling out.


Tue Nov 13, 2018 1:47 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Stu Presents 1967-1980: A History Of New Hollywood!

I'll respond to the new posts when I get the time, but for now, to revisit an older one...
Wooley wrote:
Did you read, Easy Riders, Raging Bulls?
...I still haven't read the book, but someone was kind enough to upload the entire movie on Youtube, which was an extremely informative watch, and one I highly recommend everyone check out if they can:


_________________
Recently Reviewed


Tue Nov 13, 2018 3:17 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Stu Presents 1967-1980: A History Of New Hollywood!

Stu wrote:
I'll respond to the new posts when I get the time, but for now, to revisit an older one......I still haven't read the book, but someone was kind enough to upload the entire movie on Youtube, which was an extremely informative watch, and one I highly recommend everyone check out if they can:


Oh wow, I'm definitely watchin' that, thanks.


Tue Nov 13, 2018 9:00 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Stu Presents: A History Of New Hollywood!

Oxnard Montalvo wrote:
ja I also feel like GOAT labels on movies can do more harm than good. but whaddya gonna do

Agreed. I still think The Godfather is a really stunning movie, but I wouldn't call it one of my "favorites". Probably because of the lifelong anticipation prior to it.
The whole "Greatest Movie of All Time" thing can sometimes* be a real burden to carry.

Read: almost always.


Wed Nov 14, 2018 1:03 am
Profile WWW
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Stu Presents: A History Of New Hollywood!

Slentert wrote:
Agreed. I still think The Godfather is a really stunning movie, but I wouldn't call it one of my "favorites". Probably because of the lifelong anticipation prior to it.
The whole "Greatest Movie of All Time" thing can sometimes* be a real burden to carry.

Read: almost always.

I waited until I was in my late 20s to see Casablanca because I didn't believe it could be as great as people said.
I was wrong.
I've probably seen it 10x now, I just watched it again the other day, and I'm still just totally enamored with it.
Annie Hall was another one that had "too much" anticipation built up, but it held up to any expectations.
No shit, I just saw Taxi Driver like 2 years ago (I'm 46) for this same reason.
Like I was saying the other day, I just saw The Great Escape for the first time for that same reason: it can't be as good as people say, especially considering the era and the time that's passed. I was a fool.
Chinatown. Rear Window. Vertigo. Sunset Motherfucking Boulevard (wow!). And then there was my first Kurosawa, just a couple months ago.
My point is that, for some reason, for me, every time I see one of these movies that's hyped to GOAT-level, I end up thinking it's as great or even greater than people said.
With the exception of The African Queen.
Oh wait, you know what other one just didn't blow me away? Raging Bull. Yeah, so that's two right there, maybe it's not as consistent with me as I thought.


Wed Nov 14, 2018 1:44 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Stu Presents: A History Of New Hollywood!

Oh, and if I can play too, lemme lay down some of my favorites of '72, the year I was born.

Cabaret
Vampire Circus
The Godfather
Deep Throat


... holy shit, that was NOT a good year for movies. Man, there's enough "movies I like" but in terms of, like, bang! movies, pickins are slim.

Here's a second tier of movies I liked a good bit:

1776
Across 110th Street
Deliverance
Everything You Always Wanted To Know About Sex (But Were Afraid To Ask)
Fritz The Cat
Jeremiah Johnson
Joe Kidd
Silent Running


Man, I had to go pretty low for those, for any kind of list of films. Tough year.


Wed Nov 14, 2018 2:00 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Stu Presents: A History Of New Hollywood!

Wooley wrote:
I waited until I was in my late 20s to see Casablanca because I didn't believe it could be as great as people said.
I was wrong.

Funny that you mention this. I remember seeing Casablanca for the first time a couple of years ago, and thinking it was merely okay, nothing great. It didn't live up to my extremely high expectations. I've rewatched it a few times since and now it's my favorite movie of all time. Similar thing happened to me with Taxi Driver. On a second time, I can put my expectations away and just watch a movie for what it actually is. But I'm speaking solely for myself, of course.

When to think of it, the only time I went into a movie thinking it was going to be the greatest movie of all time and I didn't get disappointed, was when I watched Once Upon a Time in the West last year.


Wed Nov 14, 2018 2:10 am
Profile WWW
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Stu Presents 1967-1980: A History Of New Hollywood!

Stu wrote:
I'll respond to the new posts when I get the time, but for now, to revisit an older one......I still haven't read the book, but someone was kind enough to upload the entire movie on Youtube, which was an extremely informative watch, and one I highly recommend everyone check out if they can:


I haven't seen this version, but the Biskind book was the primary source behind Ted Demme's multi-part doc Decade Under the Influence. Not sure if that one is on Youtube, but is also highly recommended.


Wed Nov 14, 2018 9:30 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Stu Presents: A History Of New Hollywood!

For '72 films not yet mentioned, I'll show some love for Prime Cut (genuinely entertaining in ways that surpass its sleazy premise), The Candidate (one of Redford's best performaances) and The Great Northfield Minnesota Raid (a much sharper take on the James-Younger gang than The Long Riders).

_________________
"We're outgunned and undermanned. But you know somethin'? We're gonna win. You know why? Superior attitude. Superior state of mind." - Mason Storm
____
Blog!


Thu Nov 15, 2018 12:59 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Stu Presents: A History Of New Hollywood!

Wooley wrote:
Oh, and if I can play too, lemme lay down some of my favorites of '72, the year I was born.

Cabaret
Vampire Circus
The Godfather
Deep Throat


... holy shit, that was NOT a good year for movies. Man, there's enough "movies I like" but in terms of, like, bang! movies, pickins are slim.

Here's a second tier of movies I liked a good bit:

1776
Across 110th Street
Deliverance
Everything You Always Wanted To Know About Sex (But Were Afraid To Ask)
Fritz The Cat
Jeremiah Johnson
Joe Kidd
Silent Running


Man, I had to go pretty low for those, for any kind of list of films. Tough year.


I absolutely love Vampire Circus.

_________________
yours truly,
kayden kross.


Thu Nov 15, 2018 8:39 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Stu Presents: A History Of New Hollywood!

Kayden Kross wrote:

I absolutely love Vampire Circus.

That's because it's amazing.


Thu Nov 15, 2018 1:20 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Stu Presents: A History Of New Hollywood!

Wooley wrote:
That's because it's amazing.

But not American. Sorry.


Sun Nov 18, 2018 2:28 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Stu Presents: A History Of New Hollywood!

Jinnistan wrote:
But not American. Sorry.

Oh, I see, I was just doing my favorite films of that year, I had forgotten what our topic was.


Sun Nov 18, 2018 4:24 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 178 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 32 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.